Court of Appeal upholds ruling limiting police commission’s recruitment powers

On October 19, Kenya's Court of Appeal upheld a ruling declaring unconstitutional the National Police Service Commission's (NPSC) regulations and advertisement for recruiting police constables. The three-judge bench dismissed appeals by the NPSC and the Law Society of Kenya against a lower court decision from October 30, 2025. The lower court had declared unconstitutional the September 19, 2025 Legal Notice and advertisement for police constable recruitment, as well as issued a permanent injunction restraining the commission from conducting any police service activities.

The appeals challenged the lower court's interpretation of the constitutional division of responsibilities between the commission and the Inspector-General of Police. The NPSC argued based on Article 246(3) of the Constitution, which grants it powers to recruit and appoint personnel within the National Police Service. The central dispute was about how these powers interacted with the Inspector-General's independent command under Article 245.

The Court of Appeal ruled that Article 245(4)(c) expressly prohibits anyone from directing the Inspector-General about employment, assignment, promotion, suspension, or dismissal of police members. The judges emphasized that the Inspector-General's independence in operational command must be protected, and constitutional provisions must be read together.

The court also addressed police training, finding that the service has constitutional responsibility in that area. The decision did not set a new recruitment schedule or announce a future exercise. The case was initiated by John Harun Mwau, challenging the commission's recruitment powers. The appellate court diverged from a previous precedent about recruitment committees at the sub-county level, stating it did not resolve the broader constitutional division of authority between the NPSC and the Inspector-General.

The judges also dismissed reliance on Nigerian judicial precedent, noting differences in constitutional provisions across the two systems. The appellate court dismissed the consolidated appeal in its entirety, finding it without merit. The court stated that given the public interest aspect of the matter and the commendable display of learning and industry by the counsel, the order costs would be borne by each party individually.